As opposed to Obama's and Crazy Joe Biden's "plans" (well, lack of plans actually) to have the government bankrupt by the time that they are adults? That will turn out well - read up on Weimar Germany.

The Democrats aren't waging a war on women - they are waging a much more effective war on young people.

After Obama, the deluge...

Tax-Evader Timmy Geithner, the Man Without A Plan:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Budget Committee Thursday that President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget — “the most expensive in United States history” — would “put the U.S. on an ‘unsustainable’ course” if enacted.

Geithner also told committee Chairman Paul Ryan that although the Obama administration doesn’t have a “definitive solution” to the debt crisis, it definitely knows it doesn’t like the Republican solution. ...

“We have millions of Americans retiring every day, and that will drive substantially the rate of growth of health care costs. You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is, we don’t like yours,” Geithner said.

As the past 32 years have ably demonstrated, the government will be bankrupted under either party. The difference, as always, is between blowing the money on healing people, or on killing people. Between handing out money in an incompetent fashion to people who need a kick in the butt, or padding the wallets of the Dunthorpe people like Merritt Paulson.

The Republican Party loves the rich, it loves the military, it loves telling people what they can do with their bodies, and it turns over the fundamental values of the country to people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. No, no, no, and no.

I think Obama's been a jerk. That's the whole point of this post, in case you missed it. But friends don't let friends vote for the likes of Paul Ryan. For anything. And Romney weirds me out, on multiple levels. Blue is the only way to go.

The Republican Party loves the rich, it loves the military, it loves telling people what they can do with their bodies, and it turns over the fundamental values of the country to people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. No, no, no, and no.

I think Obama's been a jerk. That's the whole point of this post, in case you missed it. But friends don't let friends vote for the likes of Paul Ryan. For anything. And Romney weirds me out, on multiple levels. Blue is the only way to go.

"I think Obama's been a jerk. That's the whole point of this post, in case you missed it. But friends don't let friends vote for the likes of Paul Ryan. For anything. And Romney weirds me out, on multiple levels. Blue is the only way to go."

You keep voting for the same thing over and over again, don't expect a different result.

You know, Obama has been remarkably silent on exactly what he plans to do with a second term.

However, word is getting out that one of the things that the D's have noticed that people are fleeing the central-city Democratic utopias for the Clackamas Counties of the US (for example, look at what has been happening to the population of Chicago recently).

Apparently, in reaction to this, one of the things the Obama Administration is apparently planning to do is take steps to massively strengthen "regional government", so you can't flee the "sustainability" planners.

If Obama is reelected, expect a lot of executive orders and Federal mandates massively increasing the power and authority of organizations like Metro and TriMet.

All the people on this board who have been chuckling that they have escaped by moving out of the Portland City Planner Utopia will find that the Portland City Planner Utopia will follow them to their new abodes, and there is nothing they can do about it, if Obama is reelected.

After all, I think that Clackamas County should be compelled by the Federal government to obey the dictates of the Portland Climate Action Plan, don't you?

Most of the Portlandia crap was hatched during the Bushes. You can try to tie Obama to Sam Adams, but it's laughable. The Presidential election is not about Metro. It's about taxes, birth control, and corporate personhood. On which, Little Lord Mittens is wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Don't let that tool get you hot Jack. No one reading thinks he's anything other than a literate fool.

I think it's funny when Obama detractors cite these mythical horrors he's about to unleash. Funny is perhaps the wrong word, maybe odd is a better word.

There is plenty to dislike about the President, his record is rife with bad stuff. The only problem is that the worst of it would be supported or enhanced by a Mittens ticket.

The notion that the economy is not centrally planned by both parties is a joke. Pure political blather. No economic power has risen without a ton of central planning. The trick is to plan the economy, not people's lives.

Neither side has a plan that will work for you and I. Only the corporate overlords are sure to win. As usual.

Uh, I'd say that applies to both political parties these days. The Dems current really big deal being the Affordable Healthcare Act which basically says your body belongs to the government. Well, except for women's reproductive rights. "My body, my choice" only applies to uteruses apparently.

Remember, here in Oregon we need a doc's permission to get sudafed for a cold. Meth still seems to be around though.

Laughable idea, that birth control is even an issue. Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, abortion is now in pill form and can be obtained through th e mail if a visit to Massachussetts is not feasible.

Abortion is here to stay and people believing it's an important issue remind me of flies in amber. What's an important issue is what we are doing about the armies of a much more dangerous God who really, really want to subjugate women worldwide.

Oh, and before this ridiculous "right to choose", comes "the right to a decent education"; the "right to walk in safety in our neighborhood"; the "right to use drugs and alcohol as we see fit"; the "right to say our opinion that Sam Adams should be recalled without being called a homophobe by every Sam-loving idiot in town". The right to get something, anything, done without being STRANGLED by government regulation. The right to do our taxes without having to become a tax lawyer. The right to bury our dead in our back yard. The right to demand that government workers be paid no more than private sector workers for equivalent work. On and on and on. Abortion? Who gives a hoot. Let them quit rutting without birth control, I say.

"abortion is here to stay"...Abortion has always been "here" and everywhere else, since women began having babies. The difference is whether or not the woman can go to a safe provider, or has to resort to being subjected to dangerous and sometimes deadly means to end an unwanted pregnancy.
I find it fascinating that the very people who oppose so called government intrusion in their private lives wish to barge into the very private lives of pregnant women, gay people, and anyone else with whom they disagree. What is next? A mandate to attend a specific church?

If given a decent canidate in this cycle, i likely would have voted republican for the first time (at least for a position of consequence). But Romney was already a tough sell, and the addition of Ryan took the option completely off the table. I like the middle class and women far too much to saddle either with Mitt and Ryan.

That's a good one. The repubs went through, what? Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul before they got as far down their list as the Mittish hopeful they are now putting forward. There is no such thing as a "decent candidate" in today's republican party. Decency is antithetical to their values.

The difference is whether or not the woman can go to a safe provider, or has to resort to being subjected to dangerous and sometimes deadly means to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, and just last week it was reported that a black 18-year-old girl undergoing an abortion at Planned Parenthood died after being allowed to bleed out. Reportedly, PP waited some five hours before having her transported to a hospital.

It's a good thing she went to a safe provider - certainly wouldn't have wanted her to have been subjected to a "dangerous and sometimes deadly" procedure.

I take it your sarcasm here is intended to suggest that legal abortion is risky. So is childbirth. So if there's a point, I'm not getting it. Are you suggesting that legal abortions are not safer than illicit ones?

I understand all of your points, Jack. As an independent, Obama's message of hope in the last election resonated with me to the point of donating money (a first for me). But I'd argue that holing your nose and voting for Romney is the better option this time around.

Obama has not delivered on any of his promises and added $5trillion of debt in the process, and I'm mad about it. He dithered during a time when he had full control - the Bush tax cuts should have ended and his health car law is just a gift to the insurance companies and Big Pharma on the backs of the middle class. Obama promised transparency and to be a "post partisan" president, which we all know was hog wash.

I have daughters too, and I'm more afraid of what will happen if we let politicians (R and D) keep "kicking the can"; left unckecked, our debt problems will make abortion look like a small issue. We have a better chance of gaining control of debt and stabilizing the economy under Romney, even if just a small one; Obama's track record can't be blamed on the republicans.

I don't have to hold my nose to vote for Obama. He's done a good job. Especially considering the opposition he's gotten from Republicans, whose only goal is to see the president fail. If Obama is for it, they are against it, whatever the issue.

If the debt issue isn't brought under control NOW, the government will be too ineffective to be doing anything concerned with women's health.

I am angry that after Reagan, a group of essentially southern, conservative religious fanatics hijacked the Republican Party so that this nonsense of abortion rights became a litmus test for any Republican anywhere to be a candidate for office. The loss of the middle-of-the-road Republicans (and Democrats) has ushered in the demise of bipartisan governance so that now all we have are black and white candidates. I don't argue religious beliefs with anyone, and, if I am truthful with myself, have probably compromised some of my own moral beliefs to accommodate ideas that are ultimately more self-serving. I do think abortion is a matter of conscience, and as such, is between a woman and her doctor and hopefully, her partner.

That said... I don't fear Roe vs Wade going away in my lifetime, and I don't see the religious fanatics gaining any ground - if anything, they are losing it. Republicans mouth the party line to get the party support and once elected, most are more than happy to leave it alone. I wish that part of the party platform was more liberal, but unless one adopts the Democratic Party ideals, then this just becomes a thing that has to be dealt with on the way to one's real goals.

And the REAL problem of the hour is the national debt. For a party that likes to use the word sustainable so much, Obama has built an infrastructure that is leading us to bankruptcy. It isn't sustainable, it was never meant to be. For Obama, ideology precedes real world common sense. We should all be looking at the cliff the car is heading at with accelerating speed and not focus on the interior appointments. There will be time for that later - IF we can avoid the cliff we all know is there.

OK....let's us discuss the fact that the largest increases in government spending and the enlargement of the federal government were "achieved" during the terms of Ronald Reagan, and The George Bushes.
The so called Republican economic conservatism and fiscal responsibility is a myth. All this current crop of candidates have in mind is lowering taxes for their uber wealthy supporters. The average working taxpayer will not benefit one iota from their policies.

Has Obama suggested anything other than raising taxes on the rich and defunding the military (and a few other programs like manned space missions, etc..) as a way to eliminate the national debt? It can't be done. Not unless you deal with entitlements. Instead he's added the break-the-bank Obamacare. All his talk about fairness and soaking the rich is populist rhetoric meant to gain popularity with the majority since the majority of people in the US are not rich. Humans love a good scapegoat in times of trouble. And Obama knows it. But other than this smokescreen of propaganda, what is his REAL plan for debt reduction?

Portland Native, I agree. We can take the debt argument back to Reagan, the Bushes, etc. Go ahead and do that. But be sure to look at the $5trillion Obama has added with no benefit whatsoever, and no interest in submitting a budget.

From my perspective, he's incinerating money without real purpose other than to support government workers and entitlements which in the end buy him support; no real jobs in the private sector have come of this nonsense, and in the end...the private sector pays for it; he's bankrupting us a a much faster rate than any president in history with no long term benefit whatsoever.

Those of you who charge Obama with $5 trillion of federal debt increase are not taking a few actual, reality-based facts into account. Among them:

1. If you are arguing that there should have been smaller deficits, basic macroeconomics will tell you that necessarily means there should have been higher unemployment. This has not worked well in the UK, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal or Greece, because higher unemployment necessarily results in reduced tax revenues and reduced consumer spending.

2. If the financial markets were concerned about the level of US debt, interest rates on treasurys would be higher. As it is, after adjusting for inflation, they are negative. Investors are paying the United States to hold their money.

3. While the public sector (measured by employment) grew dramatically under Bush, it has shrunk just as dramatically during Obama's presidency. If it were not for declines in government employment, the rate of unemployment would be considerably lower than it now is.

4. It is simply impossible for the United States to go bankrupt. We could experience inflation and higher interest rates, but bankruptcy can't happen, technically, since all the United States has its own fiat currency.

5. There is no federal spending you can point to that originates with Obama and accounts for the accumulation of additional debt. The deficits of the past four years or so are the result of a combination of (a) spending programs initiated by Bush -- two wars and Medicare Part D -- and (b) reduced revenue resulting from the Bush tax cuts and the Bush depression.

6. $5 trillion sounds like a lot of money; it probably is -- I have no context to help me grasp what it means. The four-year output of our economy is about $60 trillion, so one way to think of it is that it amounts to less than 10% of GDP.

A good time to address the federal debt would be (and would have been) when the economy is performing well. Thus, the debt was coming down so rapidly under Clinton that Alan Greenspan was worried there would be no treasurys to sell to the wealthy. But I guess we were saved by the election of George Bush and Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney.

"4. It is simply impossible for the United States to go bankrupt. We could experience inflation and higher interest rates, but bankruptcy can't happen, technically, since all the United States has its own fiat currency."

LOL. Completely true. It is, however, quite possible that it could take a sheaf of money to buy a loaf of bread. Helicopter Ben can just keep running the printing presses (via "quantitative easing") until that happens.

And, as a matter of curiosity, why was the credit rating of the United States downgraded if it is "impossible for the United States to go bankrupt"? What were the credit agencies worried about, if the Federal government can simply print money to meet all of its obligations?

For everyone who Thinks that the president controls The deficits! Take a look at this chart. Every time the budget was pared, Republicans were in control of the Senate and House. (see the Clinton miracle years). Every time the deficit bulged, a Democratic Majority ruled the House and Senate. Ahhh, the 70s. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Another article that debunks the Clinton vs Bush spending Myth that the president has absolute control over the budget is this article from Forbes referring to a study done by Art Laffer. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/
Again, the biggest factor tied to spending is the party in power in Congress. Except that for Obama, the president and the Congress are the same party, so no divide exists and Obama's budgets and spending sprees are more closely associated to him than any other recent president.

why was the credit rating of the United States downgraded if it is "impossible for the United States to go bankrupt"? What were the credit agencies worried about, if the Federal government can simply print money to meet all of its obligations?

The downgrade didn't have to do with the country's ability to meet its debts, it had to do with the absurdly partisan political climate in Washington. Politicians made it clear that they were willing to slit their own throats (and ours) to score political points. The uncertainty resulting from the political theater led to the downgrade.

"Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said 'political brinkmanship' in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances 'less stable, less effective and less predictable.'"

Confusing language in the health care reform law has raised the possibility that millions of Americans living on modest incomes may be unable to afford their employers’ family policies and yet fail to qualify for government subsidies to buy their own insurance.

Who cares wether a president is for or against abortion? You seem to forget, the president can only sign what crosses his desk into law, he doesn't create it. While not impossible it nearly is impossible to get such a bill through the house and senate. Politicians hate pissing off their constituents and that surely would, also why nothing has been done for entitlement reform.

And for you Ryan bashers out there, WTF? Just like Sarah Palin, he's running for VP and not president. What he wants doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot if he can't convince Romney. So lets keep the conversation about Obama vs. Romney and leave the VP's out of it.

Well- I could blindfold myself and play the game of "Pin the Tail on the Jackass" or I could hold my nose and vote for the Republican. Which is what I will do.
Since we don't have any statesmen nor stateswomen anymore.
Boy do I miss Tom McCall.

I could have found something to like about Barack Obama if he'd been anything he pretended to be. Instead he revealed himself as the penultimate corporate candidate, bent on bringing the country to its knees in repentance for perceived evils of the past. His first term sucked; and he had control of both houses for two years and did nothing. I have no reason to believe a second term would be any better. Time to change horses.

Sorry can't vote for the worst president in my lifetime. The man lies, lies and lies some more. GITMO, stimulus, transparancy, bills on the internet before he signs, unemployment below 8% - just the start of the many, many lies this man has told. Didn't like him when he ran first time around and after almost 4 years he has shown himself to be the WORST president of my lifetime (and I go back to Kennedy - so yeah, I'm old). Obama has been an unmitigated disaster to a point that even the dust bunny under my desk would have done better. Obama ... you're fired.

Obama is the worst president? Seriously? Did you forget about Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and George W Bush???
Hell's bells! Obama is the pen-ultimate moderate Republican! It's just that moderate Republicans cannot, and do not exist anymore. Ronald Regan, and Richard Nixon, and especially Ike, would have been kicked out of the party these days. By today's Tea Party requirements they would all be registered Democrats!

Indeed, its how I can stay sane these days. I could say the same for reading your blog more often than not as you cover issues the "old" media won't. SamRand might say the same thing about your hate blog.

The current attitude with this "war on women" is a laugh riot, its just a distraction from the economy.

Ronald Regan, and Richard Nixon, and especially Ike, would have been kicked out of the party these days.

Unfortunately true. There are more than a few that say that Nixon's foreign policy of detente with the USSR was "giving in" or treasonous. And this was the also the President who gladly signed legislation creating the EPA.

The Republican party is being held hostage by the fundies and the neocons. You want renewable energy sources? Go attach some motors to the remains of past Republicans that are spinning in their graves...

There is not a single factual assertion in it that is remotely true.

He asserted that in Obama's first two years, his party held both the House and the Senate. This is a fact. And the only thing they accomplished was passing a health care law that everyone hates for different reasons. Well done.

in Obama's first two years, his party held both the House and the Senate.

Fred, there's this funny thing in the Senate that you apparently haven't heard of. It has a funny name, too, which makes it kind of hard to understand for a lot of people. It's called the "filibuster". Nobody knows why. What is it? It's a supermajority requirement of 60 votes instead of a simple majority of 50 + 1. It used to be used rarely, usually when one minority faction believed that the majority was abusing minority rights. But once the Democrats had a majority, the supermajority requirement was used basically for everything. What this means is that the Democrats never had control of both houses of Congress, except for the seven weeks after Al Franken was seated and before Ted Kennedy died. You can look it up.

Anti-war folks on the left have gone to sleep because Obama is supposedly of their pursuasion.

Civil liberties folks on the left shake their heads at Obama and then go on supporting Obama.

How many issues leave the left unhappy with Obama but because he is supposedly of their persuasion, they grumble, but will still pull the lever for Obama?

Actually, I think it might be better for the health of the left (and their loud voice of dissent) to have Romney win.

Then they can finally see all the bad things that the government has done and will continue doing under control of both parties and then yell loud & clear, instead of grumbling and getting apathetic.

Elites from both parties have an agenda that doesn't benefit working class and middle class voters.

BOTH PARTIES!

Both parties stand in support of Wall Street.

Yes, in a situation like this (where both party's candidates are Wall Street candidates, i.e., Goldman-Sachs was Obama's largest political contributor in 2008) we need both the left and the right to be vigilant for the abuses of the elite.

Jack, you seemingly still buy into the left-right paradigm.

Haven't you seen enough of the Crony Capitalism in Portland to know Crony Capitaism has no loyalty to party and isn't restricted to one party or the other.

If the right and the left could identify the abuses by government and private parties they agree are abuses, then correcting those abuses would be much more possible.

As hard as it is, good-faith folks across the current political spectrum need to question the current divide which lets both parties get away with further abuses.

Believe me folks on the right are not going to "go to sleep" if Romney wins (like they did with Bush).

We need a re-energized left and that will only happen if Romney wins.

The police state was started under Bush (if not before), but the police state is being completed under Obama (in part because the left has been muted).

Never let the unqualified into the White House. But that is what happened in 2008 and a result this country is about over as I remember it. The "zzzzzzzzzzzzz" comment early on in this blog pretty much represents the awareness of the Bamster voters. And judging by the comments they are still asleep in 2012. Romney and Ryan are the best Republican candidates to come along since "Renaldo Magnus". And Reagan was the best President in the 20th century. When all is said and done Obama will have a reputation similar to that National Hemorrhoid, Carter.

Something else to consider: the rules of the Senate are set at the start of each session by a simple majority. The 60-vote requirement could have easily been changed. It wasn't. There are some who say the rules can be changed at other times too, by a simple majority.

"Obama's track record can't be blamed on the republicans."
Actually it could, if we wanted to be vindictive. But we must forgive the Republicans, because after Obama won, they (including Ryan) apologized for all the money they spent. I think they said they had "lost their way." That wasn't all they lost.
People who say that after 3 1/2 years Obama should have the country back on its feet and stop blaming Bush don't understand the problem. And that includes Mitt, who should know better.
Are we better off than four years ago? Yes -- because this year there is no chance John McCain will be president.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269